>> bo sat down with booktv to answer viewer questions at the festival of books and to discuss the book, marijuana legalization. that airs next on booktv. it's about a half hour. >> who is one of the co-authors of this book, "marijuana legalization: what everyone needs to know." he's with the rand corporation. if you would, start by making an argument for legalizing marijuana and against legalizing marijuana. >> well, there's a number of argumenting made on either side. some folks that want to legalize marijuana are not happy with the fact that there are, you know, 800,000 arrests every year for marijuana possession. they are unhappy that people are being, you know, put through the criminal justice system for consuming a substance they believe it safer than alcohol,
and some people argue that if you were to legalize marijuana, you would be able to tax it to generate revenue. on the other side, a lot of people have concerns about making another intoxicant legal. they look at what happened with the alcohol and the tobacco industries saying we don't want that. they are also concerned about, you know, especially if there are for-profit companies, there's concerns about whether or not there's advertising, and people are concerned about what's going to happen to the price. this is a complex debate, and that's why we put the book together, for those who have not made the decision, read the book, and be more informedded. >> as somebody who studied this, where do you come down? >> well, you know, i do work for rand, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization, and our goal was to provide information to inform policy decisions. you know, we don't have an
official position on drug policy, and we won't. the book walks through the different arguments about legalization. i can -- you know, it's interesting that at the end of the book, there's 15 chapters in the book, 150 # frequently asked questions, and, you know, ranging from what is marijuana to what is thc to how would you tax it? you know, i wrote it with three other colleagues, worked together, and we all agree op the content of the first 15 chapters, but in the last chapter of the book, we have our opinions. we didn't plan it, but we're all over the place on this, and so i don't want to spoil it. my opinion is in the back of the book. >> i read it so i'm going to spoil it. we'll put up the phone numbers. topic is marijuana legalization. the lines are divided differently, proan anti, 2302-585-3885 if you are in favor.
if you are against it, 20256585-3 # 886 is the number to dial, and if the lines are busy, you can also tweet @booktv is the twitter handle, comment on facebook, facebook.com/booktv. one of the angles you talk about is teenager use. >> yeah. i mean, that's actually -- in the debate, it's one of the few things both agree on. they want to make sure youth is not using more marijuana, and so this is where this price discussion comes in because if you were to legalize the production of marijuana, you would reduce the production costs because right now when somebody buys marijuana or methamphetamine or cocaine, a lot of what they are doing is compensating the drug dealer, and everyone else along the supply chain for the risk of arrest and incars ration.
that goes away with full legalization. you'd also expect there to be, you know, a scale if people move from backyards and basements into big industrial grows, and so for a number of reasons, we expect production costs to go down. now, the decisions that a state or any other jurisdiction makes about this, the decisions made about what type of production to allow and what to tax, that's really going to end up shaping what the retail price ends up being. this is important because we know that youth are sensitive to the price, so this is something that both sides are paying attention to. >> what is the cirpt status of marijuana legalization across the country? >> it's interesting. what happens in colorado and washington state in november was truly unprecedented. before then, no modern jurisdiction had ever removed prohibition on the commercial production, distribution, or possession of marijuana for nonmedical purposes, not even
the netherlands. that's interesting about this. people say, well, look at the netherlands, see what they did. you know, if you are over 18, and you walk into a coffee shops in amsterdam, you can buy up to five grams. they is an official policy of not end forcing the law against small transactions. it's legal in the front door of the coffee shops, but it's still illegal to produce and to sell the marijuana to the coffee shops so it's illegal actually. what that does is inflates the price. what was passed in washington and colorado would allow for-profit companies to produce. that's very different. this is very different from this other term that gets thrown around, decriminalization. people use criminalization and decriminalization interchangeably, and that's incorrect. you know, 18-19 states criminalize marijuana, but that means lowering the penalties for possession. it's going for a misdemeanor
from it being a citation. talking about decriminalization, that has nothing to do with production and distribution. that's why legalization and what happened in colorado and washington is significant. >> what is the cost the federal government to having marijuana be illegal enforcement, you know, incarceration, ect.. >> no, that's a great question. i don't know what it is for the federal government, but some of the rand research we did in 2009-2010 when california was thinking about legalizing proposition 19, we looked into it, and before we did the analysis, there was a literature review finding there were two estimates out there about how much money california taxpayers spend enforcing prohibition against marijuana. one study put it at $200 million a year, and another study put it at $2 billion a year. i mean, that's a big difference, and so for this, you know, we were able to get information
about arrests, jude cation, how many were incarcerated, and slap on unit costs, and best estimates were closer to the $200 million a year for the state of california. >> how many users in the u.s.? >> right now, there's about 17 million people that admit to using in the previous month, and we know that sometimes on these surveys people are not always honest. it would be at least 17 million, but what's interesting is when you really begin 17 million in the past month, but when you think about who is driving the markets and, you know, where is most of the money going to come from? it's going to be those individuals who are your daily to near daily users. it's those individuals who drive consumption and account for most of the expenditures. same with alcohol too. the small number of users really are providing a disportioned amount of revenue an consumption. >> 17 million admit in the last month. what about -- do you have any
comparable stats with cigarettes and alcohol? >> oh, i think, you know, i think for alcohol last month was around 50 million. i'm not -- no, i'm sure it's higher than that. >> beau, our guest, legalizing marijuana is the topic. lines divided pro and anti, and the first call on the pro line from luke in brazil, indiana. luke, good afternoon. >> caller: hey, good afternoon, thank you very much. hey, merse my thing. last august, i remember mitt romney saying how he was against pot, not just recreational pot, but against medical marijuana, and, of course, in november, obama won colorado, and more people voted for recreational pot than voted for obama, and since the election, the republicans have been talking about how they need to reach out to latinos and black people and
the gays, but i don't hear any of them talking about legalizing pot. you know? one in colorado, and, also, the other thing is this. at the beginning of the year, there was 15 minutes on c-span in the studio. there was a man on pro-pot, and there was a man on -- i think he was a retired republican congressman from the heritage foundation, again, that was against pot, legalization of pot, and, again, it's the same thing, you know, today i heard earlier on c-span talking about how they're for free market, limited government, and yet these guys come out against pot, legalized pot. >> all right, luke, thanks for the comments. we'll get an answer. >> yeah, no. this is -- you know, if you look at the latest polls, a study down by pugh got attention weeks
ago suggesting that 52% of the respondents approved of legalizing marijuana use. there's been a big change over time. there was another poll, the gallup organization does the same, and in the mid-90s when people were asked questions do you approve of legalizing marijuana use, it was 25%. now it's much closer to 50%. there's been this change in public opinion. there's reasons for that. part of it is a change in demographics too. we know that younger voters tend to be more supportive of marijuana legalization. those in the last poll, those that are aged, i think, aged 18-29 were twice as likely to approve of marijuana legalization compared to those that were 65 and older. >> edward on our antitie line from memphis, tennessee, go ahead. >> oh, yes, thank you very much. my thoughts are this.
yeah, you know, marijuana's not the worst thing in the world, but it should not be overly criminalized. it doesn't do any good. i know from my own experience that, you know, the substance wasn't the worst, but i knew that if i smoked it, i couldn't do my next three days worth of work worth a darn. what worries me is this, is that if commercialism gets into it, who is to say what percentage of thc, whatever is in the content, that'll be a whole bag of worms, and i do know this, that young people, if they start getting into it, they are not going to care much about their studies or anything. you know? maybe for older people, at their 20s, establishedded in life, a little bit of recreation, but, no, even though it's not the worst thing in the world, it
should not be widely available here. that's my thought. >> thank you, edward. beau? >> you raise a really interesting point there about commercialization. you know, i mean, for -- for the other 48 states, you know, it is -- production is prohibited, and there's a lot of discussion about, well, do we want to treat it like alcohol? you know, if you're a decision maker, and you want to do something different than prohibit them, kind of the current prohibition, you have a number of options. one option could be to treat it like alcohol and with promotion, let it be sold in stores, but there's middle ground there too. one could, you know, allow nonprofit co-ops to sell it and not advertise or just allow home growing. another option, if you think about doing something different is a state monopoly where you have the government reap in the revenue and they would be able to control the advertising and
the price and the thc content, but that doesn't get a lot of discussion in the united states because a state can't order its employees to violate such a law. i mean, that's -- i mean, we're having discussions about what's, you know, different policies in the states, but this is still all illegal under federal law, and so far the federal agencies have not come out and said how they will handle the situation in colorado or in washington. >> any stats on how many people here in california have prescriptions for medical marijuana? >> i don't know that. in the tens of thousands at least. >> is it tightly restricted? is it a carefully monitored? >> no, no. >> oh, okay. >> and, well, it's important -- 18 or 19 states now that have allowances for medical marijuana, and, you know, these states differ in terms of what they allow, you know, what
ailments they allow the medical marijuana to be used for, and they also differ by how people are allowed to get it. you know, the dispensaries in california and the dispensaries in colorado get attention, but not all states of medical marijuana allow dispensaries. there's a lot of variation there. medical marijuana is a concept. >> author of marijuana legalization, a printer on the topic, mike a pro, and he's in modesto, california. hi, mike. >> caller: hi. yeah, i want you to -- >> go ahead. >> caller: steve, i want you to get beau, his personal opinion at the end of the book there, anyway, talking about 66, a friend of mine and i went to the la county sheriff's big meeting, you know, get the probes to see what's going on with kids and whatever, they say a story about how marijuana led to heroin is because a certain
percentage of people busted for marijuana were subsequently busted for heroin, which does not prove a case salty, but proves caught for marijuana and you're screwed, your life went down the tubes, including possible heroin. i know people were roll up and thrown in the hard core l.a. county jail, and one committed suicide in there. anyway, about the medical marijuana, regular doctors don't write prescriptions. there's certain specialists. i know my nephew met a guy in a parking lot who give him his script, and dispensaries are a bunch of hop heads, but i like to see some of the antimarijuana people when their mother is got this horrible cancer and can't eat, i want to see where they stand on the marijuana. anyway, little wound up, sorry. thank you. >> mike is wound up about the
topic. what's your response to the caller 1234 >> well, you raised the issue of whether or not marijuana's a gateway drug, and, i mean, we could spend 45 minutes just talking about that, the argument being those who use, you know, those who use koa tan conscious cocaine and heroin, many of them used marijuana, but those who use marijuana don't go on to use cocaine or heroin. that said, there has been some good studies down, which have shown those individuals who use marijuana are more likely to did on to use the other drugs that they find there's a correlation there, but the caller raidses a point about with those particular studies, you have concerns about whether or not there may be some other third factor that could be driving it. maybe it was not the marijuana use. in fact, my colleagues at rand did stimulations showing there could be other explanations for this. to be honest, i think the
gateway argument probably gets too much attention in the legalization debate. there's also this other piece of this about, well, if you were able to separate out the marijuana market from not -- if it's no longer with it, will people be less likely to interagent with those selling harder drugs? it's an empirical question. if you are concerned about substances here and how they have been affected, of course, aside from marijuana, you start thinking about alcohol. >> beau, what about drinking and driving while as smoking and driving laws? should there be restrictions against operating motor vehicles and smoking marijuana? >> that's what's interesting about what happened in colorado and washington state. in washington, it's part of the initiative, they actually created a threshold for the amount of thc you have, similar to the .08: in colorado, they did not. it was not part of the
amendment. now, in colorado, the legislature is working on a number of issues and it's unclear whether or not it'll be in there, but this is something that if you're thinking about legalizing marijuana, you have to grapple with it. it's tough in terms of coming up with a particular threshold because thc states in -- stays in the system for awhile and can be stored in fat stores making it hard to measure this, and so i think, you know, over time, we're going to get more science on this. >> from port author, texas, gil is calling on anti-legalization line. c-span: thanks to c-span for the progressive topics on the booktv show. thank you very much, sir. my question is what has the research department has information coming out of the green triangle up in northern california? i'll hang up, and thank you for taking my call.
>> yeah, sorry, can you repeat the question? about the emerald triangle. >> he hung up, sorry about that, but, beau, he asked about the green triangle up in northern california. >> i think that's the emerald triangle. >> which is what? >> this is where there's a lot of production -- >> legal or illegal? >> depends. some of it is for the medical market here in california, and some of it is not for the medical market. there's a tremendous amount of production there. >> okay. is there a lot of enforcement up there? is there -- >> it depends. in terms of, you know, different counties have different policies about how they are -- about how many plants they are going to allow, but it's important to distinguish between the state level, and there's also federal enforcement too. as i said, it's illegal under
frame law, so you have federal rates on dispensaries, and the feds, federal agencies are cutting down plants in some places. what that does, though, is because -- as i mentioned before, that threat, that risk of arrest of incars ration, what that does is helps to -- it inflates the cost of producing the marijuana. >> marijuana legalization, published by oxford, and kathy's on the line from brooklyn, new york on the pro-legalization line. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i want to say i'm 61 years old. i went to college in the 70ings. i was so anti-marijuana even though i was a liberal, by dad said, it's illegal, you can't do it. when i smoked, i tried it two times, i didn't get anything from it. i was taking drugs for adhd, decided to go off of it, going
through withdrawal, because that's a buffer, and my son says try marijuana. i thought, well, okay. i will. in new york, you know, if you're probably latino or african-american, if you -- i live in a decent area, you know, they don't care. yeah, you know, people coming 20 your house to tell you all these varieties of things, i have a vaporizer so i'm not worried about my lungs. it saved my life, honestly. it saved my life. i believe within five to seven years it's going to be legal in every state, and i hope federally it is. now, when i think of people drinking, and i know plenty of people who can cannot drink socially, and go out, and they drive. i'll tell you, i don't have a car anymore. we used to live in a state with four cars, all the kids and myself, but i much prefer them to go the with marijuana in the
systems rather than alcohol. >> kathy -- >> caller: yeah? >> how often do you use marijuana? >> well, you know, it's funny. some people say -- i have these anxiety attacks, and i never did before, and i use it once in the morning with the vaporizer and beau can tell you about the vaporizer. i never smoked. i want to take care of my lungs, i'm down to once a day. he comes to my house. i just like to talk to him, and i hope it becomes legal. they tax it. it'sed good for the state. i think it's a good thing to control it. i'd rather have that than alcohol. the book is wonderful and proud of the man. thank you. >> beau kilmer? >> you know, you're right. i eluded to this before, but it's -- if you really, you know,
there's some people against marijuana legalization because they are morally imposed to intoxication. there's other people, you know, for legalization because they are morally opposed to having the government tell them what to put in their bodies, and people have opinions that are fine. folks care about what's going to happen, you know, especially in terms of public health, and one of the things we realized in writing the book is that you're trying to do that cost benefit analysis and trying to figure out whether or not this is good or bad, a lot's actually going to dependent on how marijuana legalization influences alcohol use to the extent that we think with legalization, you know, if the price goes down and there's promotions, we expect consumption to go up. nobody knows how much because it's really going to depend on details of the different regime, but if marijuana use goes up, what's going to happen to alcohol use? will people substitute away from alcohol and just use marijuana, or will they will be likely to use them together, have them,
you know, be complimentry goods? those who use marijuana and alcohol don't have any problems, but there are people that do have, you know, the heavy users of marijuana users that do have, you know, run into problems, and it creates problems for them and their families, and so there are social costs associated with heavy marijuana use. we also though there's social costs sorted with heavy drinking, and those social costs associated with heavy alcohol consumption really outweigh costs associated with marijuana use, but the question is is how does it affect alcohol consumption? right now, we don't have science. even if there was con consensus about whether or not there was economic substitutes or compliments, it's not clear that that research would be applicable post legalization. as people pay attention to colorado and washington figuring out, hey, good idea or bad idea,
i hope they pay attention to what happens with alcohol as well. >> linda harper tweets in, yes to marijuana and taxing, bong pipe, lot healthier than alcohol, and from our facebook page, devan warton asks, where does the industrial use of hemp fit into the discussion? >> this is, yeah, so in most states that are thinking about legalizing recreational consumption, they are thinking about the hemp as well, and you see in stores now, we have products made, but you can't make it in the united states. it's coming from china or canada so, you know, and i think people exaggerate what some of the financial benefits there, but with this, there is a first mover advantage in terms of if you're a state, you know, trying
to do this. >> saw san on the antiline from knack, go ahead. >> caller: i'm a substance abuse counselor and really, in the program, has not hit on the health consequences of the use of marijuana. i think if the pugh foundation had down a sampling of people in the mental health field, particularly those of us who worked in substance abuse, you would have found a far greater number of people who were not for legalizing marijuana because we've seen the effects on people, the brain, the damage that is done, and this idea that it's not as bad as alcohol or it doesn't really do anything. i just say that's just simply not true. >> thank you, suzanne. >> yeah, suzanne, that's a great point. there's a whole chapter in the
book devoted to discussing the literature about the harms associated with marijuana use, and, you know, as i said, i think most people that use alcohol and marijuana don't have problems, but it can cause serious problems for some individuals. we know that marijuana use can increase the probability of anxiety or panic attacks, increase the risk of traffic accidents. we know that some people become dependent causing problems for them, problems with their families, and, so, no, marijuana is not a benign substance, but what -- it'll be interesting to see, you know, for the states that do legalize, how they regulate it. you know, are they going to put, you know, limits on the amounts of thc to be consumed? how will they tax it? all decisions they will go influence the type of marijuana that's consumed, and that's going to have important implications for the health effects. >> time for a quick call from risk -- rick, tuckerton, new jersey.
hello, line. >> caller: hello there. i'm 58 years old, smoked a lot of pot in college in the early mid-70s, and i did some, and i'm shocked it's not been legalized. how many congressmen have smoked pot? how many politicians smoked pot, add -- admitted to it, how would that affect the vote? thank you. >> any response? >> yeah, i don't know. [laughter] >> well, is there -- are you seeing evidence that congress is switching views on this? that perhaps in ten years, what will we be talking about? >> it's really going to depend on the federal response so this right now, i mean, even though washington and colorado have legalized the production and distribution and possession of marijuana, we still have not heard from the federal government about how they are going to respond, and i think
how the federal government responds to these states or these different federal agencies, i think that's going to send a signal, not only to the states, but also to the other 48, and plus the district of columbia, so, but that said, even beginning with the barney frank and ron paul introducing legislation, i mean, i was just at the university of -- at oregon state -- sorry, university of oregon law school yesterday, and they were talking about the bill that he and also that representative paul introduced. ..
>> well, it was an interesting thing after my father died, my mother was at the medfield beach and there was a meeting she wanted to attend, so i took off and drove her down for the meeting. i don't know, i guess i spoke up and said something and the next thing i know is we have an election, the regular yearly election. i got a call the next day saying i had been elected as a member of the tribal council. i was absolutely floored.
i couldn't believe it. so that was my start in our local politics. >> she transformed this tribe in a way that no one can deny the ramifications in palm springs have been in tax across the country because what she was doing was setting in motion a guideline for modern evidence that would lead to economic development, which is what they desperately needed. she transformed by striving to have the richest tribes in the country by virtue of her efforts. >> i grew up in palm springs, california. i was born in 1921 and i was warning section 14, which is right in downtown, palm springs
now. my parents had a motor hoist era and i just grew up with kids and going to school, just a regular last. it was interesting because of the fact that the women's club is an officer and that was used to it while brown and we didn't have a constitution. we did not bylaws. we didn't have any. we just had bylaws and that was a shocker to me that we didn't have any of that. >> or is never a tribal attorney before mrs. ortner got involved. she paid for the attorney out of her own fund, knowing the necessity to have legal counsel
throughout the regulations the government had developed to run indian land she was determined to maximize those and other resources. this is before gaming came in, said mrs. ortner no state any chance of building a better future for their tribe, it is to maximize the land. >> section 14 became a bad slump because we didn't have leasing. so we would have some people would say you can come and be on my land. so then it became very congested and it is not a good day. >> host: >> sco may face a parcel for
arboriculture purposes come you get a clientele that's not going to stay long. they don't put enough in to make it really develop. just imagine if somebody is only in your property for five years, they bring trailers are they bring a tent. they are not going to bring substantial property investment into the land and same thing if they are planning trees or other types of crops, and they are not going to take it as seriously as if he put the long term investment and until he put infrastructure and a not so somebody was not willing to do. people say well, we could develop palm springs, but we don't have access to the laws. in her case, she wanted to change that and she was going straight for 99 years. that had been used in other contexts, 99 years. i first she just kept working
away, got the first 25 years but they were of 25 years wimax, 50. the first long-term place in my public law 255 and i was put through first and that she was back to work testifying before congress. going to washington d.c., arguing there's one interesting concept where she says we need vitamin money. so we have to develop our land and we can't do that unless we rewrite the leasing loss. >> that was quite an achievement for tried to do that and we were able to eventually rebuild
downtown and everything turned around, being able to get developers to come in and help them do all that. it was an opening for a tribe. with the conditions in washington today that we have no lobby has family had just eight attorney and we find one in. so that was quite an accomplishment. one of the things i'm very proud of as a tribal mom were is that i was able to get with the help of my counsel, the reasons why
we needed a constitution and bylaws. and that was an exciting time because we literally went around to the different homes and explained about a constitution and bylaws because the men were not very happy with us because we turn out to be an all woman tribe account will commit.this is a good idea, which it was. it gave us a way to organize and have respect in the community and everything. we are not just letting things go by ultra skill to her. they took the position that we listen to the city and you have to listen to learn, to make the right decision.
we didn't always agree with the city where do with the city wanted us to do, but we had this relationship or we could talk about it and discuss it. we shouldn't be talking that much. there's just one of those little thing we had to overcome. the city has helped us at different times when we needed help with their legislators in washington d.c. so it became a good working relationship that continues to this day. i don't think the men ever really have gotten over about the way. >> host: >> as opposed to the traditional leaders, they were very close to migrate inward, were trusting. they didn't want to work with
the city of palm springs, very overt stiffness and they had to work together. the way the land this construct did, the reservation land inside the city limits of palm springs air in mind the book describes how 7000 acres of the city limits or tribal land. that's huge. you have to interface with the city somehow. because of her willingness to stretch out a hand, she was able to accomplish the things inside there's a quote in the book that because i was a half breed, i was able to do this. i was willing to reach across because her father, with light, her mother was caliente trained
10. mrs. ortner was brought up in those two cultures. to her, it wasn't something alien to do and was the assets that allowed her to achieve the momentous thing she did. >> host: i've always read a person whose job to do you do it. if you sweep the floor coming of the cleanest water. whatever it was, we just did it. i didn't have any at retention about not doing the advancing. >> a modern palm springs today as a result of what a five woman tribal council did because they reached across the aisle so to speak and they worked with the city to come up with new zoning, new rights-of-way come in new
plants for infrastructure, new plants are gaining six together for specific needs. >> the reservation represents a small portion of what the native americans once had it lets face it, that's true. on the other hand, the attitude was okay we can sit around and be better to live so much land taken or we can work in really maximize the assets we do have. channel levins, "palm springs legends: creation of a desert
oasis." >> palm springs, it is a special place. people who have been living here for years, the caliente canyons down in the hot springs, down and the heart of what is now palm springs and for many years, they hunted and planted in their non-indians. they didn't get here until early 1800s. i credit their birth of the time of a guy named judge mccowan. he was a politician. he was a big shot in sacramento, a state senator. he even went to washington d.c. and the president was shot as part of the committee. i'm talking president lincoln back in the mid-1800s. at any rate, he discovered that
his oldest son, johnny had tuberculosis and prior to that time they weren't sure was a good cure for respiratory elements, but they discovered the dry desert air would be the best. said he quit everything, move to the valley and he was coming into palm springs area and saw it thought of opportunity. he started buying the land from the railroad, buying other land. he held an auction in people came and they bought and he sold plots of land and these people came and planted them for the first couple years everything was wonderful. also as to, citrus that grew here in the desert. people think of it is desert, but there is water here. it's an aquifer, subtle streams tumble down from the mountain
and at any rate for a few years that prospered and then disaster struck. the t. 94 began an 11 year drought. one by one, the settlers just abandoned. there is no water. an 11 year drought is hard to overcome. so they left in mcallen died thinking him as a failure and then his widow died in children died except for one. she came back in the town and saw the old ranch, not the mayor. they even used it for firebird. she decided to rebuild. rebuilding, replanting, got an instant helper and then started buying up to lots of the people who left. pretty astute businesswoman she buys. she ended up building the first hotel in palm springs, the
oasis. she also built the tennis club. she understood portion and she was responsible for helping get it going. meanwhile, another woman came into town and built the desert in. mrs. nellie coffman and these two women, nellie coffman pro mcmahon. they were extremely different in personality, that they help sustain growth. nelly was married to a.your one of the things they wanted was a sanatorium because by this time, they came to realize the dry desert climate was really good for respiratory ailments. people came from all over. either they had first had a
respiratory situation are some number of their family did. they were coming here, celica palm springs has several different backgrounds. number one is agriculture. that was how it was set up originally. number two is a sanatorium business. people came from all over to cure tuberculosis, luminary diseases and what have you. the desert help them live longer, more enriching lives. some of those people were artists and for talk refers and authors in a kind of look at the next phase of development and palm springs as the artists and writers stage because they either had problems or somebody in their family did. jimmy superintendent is a cartoonist for william randolph hearst and he developed respiratory problems.
he said hey, go to the desert. so that shows phonics and pulled about these people, these authors and famous photographers and writers who were here. they kind of knew each other. it was like an artists colony surface heat. they were the next phase. a ticket from a respiratory name and by this time, to come malakoff and these people were realized and they could appeal beyond the signatory. so it attract the people from all walks of life. celebrities who come out here just to ensure the what the desert has to offer. they were all the celebrities at the time. auburn einstein and shirley tam will end you name a celebrity and they were out here. and then i look at the next
phase as the celebrity face. i don't forget, were only about 100 miles to hollywood. those people mandated place to kick back and they discovered palm springs. so that became a haven for the movies that and there's a lot of history here about people. some of them are low-key. others were party hearty and made a name here for themselves. i look at the next phase of the celebrity based on some of the places like the racquet club were built by a couple of performers. they were tennis that is at the desert in, another place, too. he kept talking accords, said the manager say they've got to do some thing. they bought a piece of land
north of town. they built their own tennis club and called it the racquet club and thrived for decades. marilyn monroe was discovered in a pool player. in fact, when i came to town, you select to go to dinner there. the racquet club was an institution among other places and the celebrity crowd -- in fact, people came and took celebrity tours and the buses drive them up and down the street and most of the people have been long gone, but there's still a number around in the area. there's a lot of things that have had and in recent years. if you look north of town, over 3000 windmills harnessing wind power. the tram, which opened in the 60s about 10 years ago put a revolving -- the world's largest revolving tramcar risk see how
from 2500 feet to 8500 feet in 10 minutes. it's so beautiful, so different from here. it's just amazing. so you've got the folly theater downtown. there's hiking trails, a lot of great restaurant and there's a lot to live here in palm springs, there really is. >> next time we take a look at the cover to cover booklet. the latest selection is "mao's last dancer," a dancer who started his career at the beijing dance academy at 11 years old and affected from china and jimmy houston ballet come to me. >> welcome, everyone. a lot of new faces today. and jeff clayton. i am the collections and
operations manager at the library and we have been doing the club since 2008 here come the silliest that a few of folks that have stuck with us the entire time. so let's go ahead and get started. today's book is "mao's last dancer" by li cunxin. it is a big hit in australia on the bestsellers list for a year and i have. it was on the shortlist for the national biography award and won the christopher award in the united states. it's been printed over 30 times and published in over 20 countries. would like to get started. >> i think it showed in china. i didn't know if they came to pat, but certainly those people
lived -- i mean, they're constantly starving. [inaudible] and of course, never complained. we seem to accept whatever happens. he never complained. [inaudible] which was the lecture he gave never said i love you. but there was happiness. the parents worked morning, noon and night, but they were a happy
family. the first time he said i love you too is neither. that's what i got out of this book. he made a new life for health care >> i i recommended the book and found it fascinating because it is the culture of which i knew very little, particularly the object poverty these people lived in. i will never look at a hearing the same way again. i notice that was one of the things he missed when he left china and came here. i thought it was appalling that he was separated from his
family's outlaw, even though his parents were allowed to come to this country payments he defect did, he was not allowed to go back for eight years to see his family or his friends. although love with the family invention and the love that he had for his friend that he trained with, would still bear, they picked up where they left off. the fact that they were so accepting of his sister and wife and she was though it didn't have a family i thought was wonderful. >> i enjoyed it because it was the first time somebody was explaining there are next theory and of communist china and how it became communist, but had the family onstage the same msi grew
up i thought this was all torn apart in these countries. his family stayed really bonded until the parents passed away. it is tempting to hear what the first person. i thought that was a great experience. >> didn't you just love his reaction the united states when he came here? it was nothing he had been told it was. he expect to great buildings and people in poverty and he kept looking for that as he was driving on freeways and he's been in with nothing like you expect it to be and that is when he finally realized the government had lied to him his whole life. [inaudible] >> he was the sixth of seven
sons. [inaudible] >> i think that was during the time of the cultural revolution, the gang of four and so forth. they dirty hot other children by then. >> when i was a child he went for the training that was very severe and he did complain, but he never whined about it. i think his focus is to bring pride to his family, which was so strong. utter know if i could have dealt with that severity, especially its not like i want to be a ballet dancer.
[inaudible] >> i think he had cared for her. they were brought up with rules, probably unspoken rules, but they had cared for her. all the boys had character. they bonded and loved each other ever most successful. >> one of the things i found that warmed my spirit was reading some of these journals. i think he wrote it everyday and knew that the personal feeling. [inaudible]